NATO barely restrained !

StoltenbergsuspectedRussiain an effort torestore the systemof spheres of influence.

On the eve of the 66th anniversary of the founding of NATO, which falls on April 4, its current secretary general Jens Stoltenberg spoke in Brussels to MEPs. Spoke mostly about the further development of cooperation between the EU and NATO. But turned his attention to Russia.

First of all, according to the German business newspaper Handelsblatt, Stoltenberg reassured overly impressionable allies on the block relative to the “Russian threat.” Stating that at present does not come from Moscow no threat to one NATO member country. Because, in the words of NATO Secretary General, “we were able to make a proper deterrence.” But he did not like that the Russian side is trying to restore a system in which the world is divided into spheres of influence.

“We are opposed to this, as each country is sovereign. And you have to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States “- quoted by Interfax Stoltenberg.

How do we relate to such accusations? And that, in fact, does not suit the head of the Alliance?

– Statement Stoltenberg can be interpreted as anything – said department head of the regional policy of the Institute of Public Administration and Management RANHiGS the Russian president, Doctor of Political Sciences Vladimir Stoll. – But, apparently – and this is no novelty – NATO Secretary General well when the world is under the influence of only the Americans and the North Atlantic Alliance. When there is no competition on the horizon.

Prior to 1991, the world was divided into spheres of influence. That is, until the collapse of the Soviet Union and went into oblivion Warsaw Pact countries as competing or opposing military-political organization in relation to the North Atlantic Treaty.

In 1991, the confrontation ended. West – in the euphoria. He is represented by the United States dominates absolutely everywhere. Most experts then agree that the collapse of the bipolar system will lead to a “pink-pacifist” state in world politics – when there will be no wars, no confrontations, no spheres of influence. Everything will be fine …

“SP”(“Svobodnaja Pressa”-A free press): – Did not work out?

– Peace was not sure. If we recall this period, starting from the very first military operation – “Desert Storm” in 1991, on what is called a train stop at all stops.

Here we can recall the Yugoslav tragedy involving the Alliance. By the way, was the first time in Europe, NATO troops were present in the territory of a sovereign at the time of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And it was ok in terms of Western logic. Then there were Afghanistan, again Iraq, Syria, Libya … And that everyone liked. When Russia began to show some signs of independence in the middle of the “zero” (a kind of watershed here as it is Putin’s Munich speech in 2007 at the International Conference on Disarmament) – is our partners actively dislike this.

That is, when we are “white and fluffy”, all is well. When the Russian army destroyed his hands, in fact, as the Russian leadership under the guise of the so-called reform of the armed forces – that’s good. When there is awareness of national interests – West outraged. With that, he says, every sovereign country should have its own national interests.

“SP”: – Ordinary double standards …

– Of course. If, for example, take the military doctrine of the United States, there in black and white that the national interests of the United States of America – everywhere. Around the world. That is, the Americans have such a right. No one else such or similar rights can not be.

Regarding the current situation, I have the impression that since 1991, when the USSR collapsed and ceased to exist a block of the Warsaw Pact, the Alliance for a while was looking for causes and reasons for its preservation. Because logically, if the missing main opponent, then NATO, it would seem, we must cease to exist. Since the external enemy, opponent, rival – somehow it can be called – was gone. However, this did not happen. Moreover, there is a certain transformation conceptually structures and NATO command. And today we have what we have.

“SP”: – What exactly has changed?

– Alliance began to behave more actively after the adoption of the end of 2010 at the Lisbon Summit the new strategic concept of the block. Defense, peacekeeping and security – that’s like three postulates on which the activities of the North Atlantic Treaty today. Moreover, the entire activity of NATO after 2010 moved as close to the Russian border.

Active NATO’s eastward expansion since 1991 has led to the fact that if, prior to 1991, there were 16 countries in the Alliance, but today they have become 28. And it’s not only the former socialist countries, but, most worryingly, the former Soviet republics. And it’s not just about the Baltics. In preparing to join the Alliance Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia.

Therefore, the current secretary general rhetoric remains the same – this is a confrontation. But the paradox of this policy lies in the fact that virtually no serious international problem of NATO today is not able to resolve without Russia.

This is connected with the threats that originate from the so-called “Islamic State” *. This is the current situation in Africa, in particular in Nigeria. This Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Americans and NATO troops. This is generally the entire Middle East and Central Asia, and many other areas where experience shows that without the alliance with Russia a practical solution to any global issues is simply impossible.

According to head of the department for European Security, Institute of Europe, the candidate of economic sciences Dmitry Danilov, the theme of spheres of influence – in a Western interpretation of zones of influence – totally new:

– It is a traditional thesis, which rises when the criticism towards Russia increased – during the crisis of relations between the West and Russia. It is clear that the current Ukrainian crisis is largely the result of the fact that Russia and the West have not been able to agree on so-called common spaces. What was said in the context of space “from Vancouver to Vladivostok”, “from the Atlantic to the Pacific”, etc …

Clearly, Europe increasingly divided into two parts. One Europe, which is concentrated around the Euro-Atlantic institutions and NATO. Moreover, institutions expanding …

And another Europe, the center of which is Russia. Which tries to formulate his own philosophy of integration, the Eurasian integration. But in the context of, shall we say, increasing the fault passing in Europe – in Ukraine.

So when Stoltenberg speaks of spheres of influence, there is, in fact, there is a substitution of concepts. In Russia, there are not only the specific interests of the former Soviet Union, but also its own responsibilities in this area.

Stoltenberg in this case replaces the notion – he talks about spheres of influence. Then how to talk about the area of ​​interest. On special interests of Russia in the post-Soviet space, in the first place. And the scope of responsibility.

“SP”: – This is the reason of differences between the West and Russia today?

– I would say, fundamental differences. The danger is that if Stoltenberg repeats these formulas and talks about Russia’s attempts to formulate a national strategy in terms of spheres of influence, which means that organizations such as NATO would have to look for relevant answers. Therefore can not be considered his words only political and diplomatic rhetoric. Such definitions largely lay coordinate system, which will be built in the near term Western policy. Including policies and conceptual installation of NATO.

And since this way, Russia would be very strange excuses and say that we are not talking about some spheres of influence, and so on … After all well aware that in this case the problem is reduced not only to increased geopolitical rivalry Russia and the West. First of all, the post-Soviet space. We are talking about a serious geopolitical confrontation with all its consequences, with all the components of this collision. Someone might call it “the new edition of the Cold War.” Someone might say that until this matter has not yet reached. But de facto we are talking about a serious geopolitical impact, the return to a relationship of mutual deterrence.

“SP”: – How long?

– It depends on how Russia and the West will be able to (or try to) go back into the European mainstream. And this, in turn, can only be done on the basis of the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, where Russia and the West are the main actors who have to negotiate.

Now, if we (I mean the whole Greater Europe) will continue to think in terms of spheres of influence and accuse the partner that he is acting exactly in this paradigm, then, on this basis is unlikely to be something to negotiate. Especially that one of the components (and this is very important) the normalization of relations is just thawing of relations between Russia and NATO. But if Stoltenberg will repeat the formula, which he said in Brussels that there will be serious obstacles to the establishment of our relationship.